THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS BLOG IS TO SHARE WITH THE READER ISSUES OF HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE FROM A PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVE.
ORDER OF MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG: USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, UKRAINE,CANADA, INDIA,and CHINA.

Monday, 28 December 2015

Top events in 2015 that shaped the world and are very likely to continue
doing so include the economic slowdown not just in China and India, but in most
of the world outside the US. Globalization under the neoliberal model of development
continued to devastate the middle class in 2015 as it has in the last three
decades, especially in countries where monetarist austerity combined with neoliberal
policies took effect. Combined with a fiscal structure that favors corporations
and the wealthy, monetarism and neoliberal policies had the effect on a world
scale of slowing consumption spending owing to downward pressure on wages,
forcing some governments to increase capital spending, especially in the
defense sector, to stimulate growth.

Capital goods spending trend will continue in 2016 in a number of developed
countries trying to keep GDP growth steady against pressures of a declining
world GDP in 2016. At the same time, because of monetarism (austerity) and
economic stagnation in less advanced countries, the transfer of capital from
the less advanced countries will continue toward the G-7, especially US, China,
and Germany. Sociopolitical volatility as a result of downward socioeconomic
mobilization in much of the world will entail more uprisings than in 2015, more
“terrorist” activity, and greater tendency on the part of popular masses to
look for political solutions in the extreme right wing political groups.

2015 started with the Charlie Hebdo attack by Yemen al-Qaeda-affiliated
individuals, the same al-Qaeda that US-NATO ally had been supporting al-Qaeda
in Yemen against pro-Iranian Houthis. The year ended with the Paris bombing by
ISIL-affiliated individuals in Paris, the same ISIL group also backed by US-EU
allies that include Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This policy contradiction on the part
of the US and its allies selectively backing terrorists while fighting to
destroy them means that the war on terror will continue because the goal is to
destabilize the Middle East so that it is easier to control it. Meanwhile, the
war on terror, which Muslims believe is a war against by the crusading Judeo-Christian
West against their religion, will only intensify because it is the political
leverage the West, especially the US has to keep citizens under sociopolitical
conformity and distracted from economic and social problems at home.

Asia, Latin America, and Africa

The biggest development in Asia in 2015, especially China and India, was
the economic slowdown that has global impact. Although spending in capital goods
is expected to halt some of the stagnation, government efforts to bring public
debt under control entail IMF-style monetarist policies that transfer income
from the low and middle income groups to the upper while the state as a conduit
of economic development applies the breaks on stimulating the economy; this in
traditionally quasi-statist countries that rely on public spending for economic
stimulus. The neoliberal model that the IMF, banks and corporations are
promoting is taking its toll during Asia’s downward cyclical period that will
continue in 2016. The Chinese currency joining the world’s reserve currencies
after the IMF gave its blessing is a major development in so far as it signals
tough decisions for the US in its attempt to manage the burgeoning public
deficit and balance of payments deficit. In 2016, China will continue to play
the role of trying to engender stability around the world because it has the
most to gain as the rising economic power expanding its role, especially in the
less developed countries. This is in sharp contrast with the US and its NATO
allies that will continue to pursue destabilization policies using overt and
covert military means precisely because their global economic influence in
relationship to China is dwindling.

The rapid deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan where
China looks like would emerge as the beneficiary from US-NATO intervention was
another major development in 2015. While the security situation in Afghanistan
will only deteriorate in 2016, China will continue making progress toward
overtaking the US not only as the world’s largest economy in PPP terms as it is
now, but also measured in nominal values as well. This will mean that Japan
will have to grow its public debt to grow the economy by spending on defense,
as it already has been doing, using China as the pretext for stronger national
security. India will also follow Japan’s lead, relying on closer cooperation
with Russia while the intense competition for foreign investment will slow its
economy against the background of falling commodity prices that will impact all
commodity-dependent countries across Asia and the world in 2016.

Besides the economy, Asia was also in the news because of the climate
issue. China’s pollution is well-known, but it was India taking a leading role at
the Paris climate conference. That anything will be accomplished to bring
climate change under better control remains to be seen given the history of
such summit meetings that have not changed much in the last three decades.
Moreover, the climate change issue is really one that corporations with
investments in solar technology, pollution cleanup, renewable energy, etc. are
pushing because there are huge government subsidies involved. In short, climate
change is just another means of corporate welfare, although one that people can
feel good about.

In 2015, Brazil’s economic and political problems led the top stories along
with Argentina returning to neo-liberalism along with other republics to follow.
Brazil’s economic miracle is turning into an economic stagflation nightmare for
the majority of the people. Venezuela and Argentina are abandoning the remnants
of economic nationalism and plunging into neo-liberalism. This means much
closer integration with the US and EU, thus strengthening foreign capital to
the detriment of national capitalism; this at a time that foreign- led economic
growth in Brazil had inspired other countries looking forward to emulating its
development model. Like its sister republics dependent on commodity exports
that include energy and minerals whose prices have dropped sharply, Brazil’s
prospects are very dim until the regional economies begin to grow above 4%. Not
that the world economies will soon perform as they did before the recession of
2008, but the IMF and World Bank forecasts paint a dim picture for 2016,
especially if we exclude the United States.

The economic slowdown across Africa, but especially in South Africa along
with the problems Nigeria faced fighting Boko Haram rebels top the stories in
sub-Sahara Africa. Although Nigeria hardly receives the coverage that France
does when it comes to jihadist activities, Boko Haram-related deaths number in
the thousands (more than 3,500 according to Amnesty International) in 2015. Because
the West has no interest in this issue unless it impacts the Western oil
interests in Nigeria, there is very little media coverage and hardly the
outrage that one finds when whites are the target of jihadists.

Meanwhile, in Muslim northern Africa, Libya remained in total
tribal-political chaos that is the legacy of US-NATO military intervention in
the name of regime change (2011). The fragmentation of Libya and the rise of
jihadists is also characteristic of other Islamic countries where foreign
intervention was prominent, especially Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Of course, the US
and the Europeans blame the people, their leaders and religious, tribal and
ethnic rivalries, just as European colonialists did in the 19th
century. The US and its northwest European allies deny any responsibility for
the chaos and instability that the West created in order to deny spheres of
influence to a regional power like Iran or a global one like Russia, while gaining
political, economic and strategic influence. This trend will continue in 2016
but it will hardly benefit the US and its northwest EU allies, considering the
impasse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria demonstrated that military solutions do
not work and in fact they backfire on the interventionists.

ISIL, the
West and Russia

The Islamic
State ISIL was a top global story in 2015 as it was in 2015 and will be again
in 2015. Especially significant for 2015 because of the Paris bombing in
November and the flood of refugees that caused political and economic problems
for all of Europe, essentially triggering resurgent Western nationalism, xenophobia
and racism at much higher levels than we have seen recently. Because of the
apparent East-West cooperation after the Paris bombing to devise a strategy to
defeat ISIL, the West and Russia story becomes more promising because it could
potentially point to renewed US-Russia rapprochement to solve other regional
conflicts; at least in areas where military solutions simply have no prospects.

There were
many interesting ISIL-related developments in 2015, among them the Western
quest to fight ISIL while indirectly supporting it and facilitating its
operations in Syria against the Assad regime and in Iraq as a counterweight to
Iran and pro-Iran Shiite elements inside Iraq. Directly related to ISIL was the
massive refugee issue for the EU in which Turkey played both sides, managing to
receive several billions from the Europeans not to send refugees while at the
same time facilitating ISIL operations and continuing to send refugees to the
continent.

The bombing
that took place in Paris with many casualties was a human tragedy and a
political disaster for Western anti-terrorism policy, although this is not how
the Western media portrayed the issue. A day before the suicide bombs in Paris,
the bombing in Beirut demonstrated the ease with which jihadists fighting
against the Assad regime are able to operate. Three bombings – Paris, Lebanon,
Russian plane in Egypt - within a remarkably short span of time demonstrate the
reach of an organization that was once backed by US allies in the Middle East,
and by the US indirectly in the war that the US started to bring down the Assad
regime, all in the name of freedom and democracy, just as the US has been
delivering freedom and democracy in Libya among other North African countries.

The quest to
destabilize and ultimately overthrow Syria’s President Assad has failed in the
last four years and made matters worse for all regional powers but also for the
EU and US that believe the only option is a military one until it proves a resounding
failure. The US and its European and regional allies have managed to create a
new force that has some appeal at least with the radicalized Sunni Muslims not
just in Syria and Iraq but across the Middle East and wherever there are
Muslims who feel that the Judeo-Christian West has sided with the state of
Israel and has been trying to destroy Islam under the pretext of terrorism. Now
that US secretary of State John Kerry has been in talks with Russia about how
to stabilize Syria there are hopes on limited spheres of influence for
imperialists dividing the spoils. While this may temporarily contain the threat
of ISIL, the Western crusade against Islam will produce more jihadist groups in
the future that target not just the West, but also Russia with a considerable
Muslim population in many of the former Soviet republics of Eurasian region.

Russian
President Vladimir Putin demonstrated once again in 2015 that he is indeed an
authoritarian nationalist leader with Tsarist imperialist tendencies, but one
who respects the traditional global balance of power and prefers diplomatic
settlement of conflicts because Russia is much weaker than the combined force
of NATO. This does not mean Putin is shy about using force, as clearly shown by
his aggressive policy to prevent NATO-Western encirclement or containment policy
as the US-EU intervention in Ukraine has demonstrated in the last four years,
while maintaining a foothold as a regional player in the Middle East as Russian
support for the Syrian government against ISIL has also shown.

In 2016, there are likely to be resolutions on several fronts between
Russia and the West, revolving around the Middle East but also Ukraine whose
population has been struggling economically since the Russia-Western
confrontation over this country rich in natural resources but very corrupt
political leadership divided between Russia and the West. This means that
resolution is most likely in the Ukraine because it is simply too costly for
the West to finance a right-wing pro-Western regime that is essentially as
corrupt and oligarchic in composition as the previous pro-Moscow one. We are
also likely to see the end of the Syrian conflict. This has been very costly
for the imperialists of the East and West, indirectly benefiting China and Iran
while draining and dividing Europe owing to the refugee question.

We may also see some resolution to the conflicts in Libya and Yemen along the
lines of the Syrian model, although both Yemen and Libya present greater
challenges than Syria because of much deeper tribal/ethnic divisions. Much will
depend on the Palestinian situation where the Israeli apartheid state will
become much more aggressive toward the Palestinians. This is largely because
the Palestinians have no leverage other than the anemic international boycott
movement against companies doing business with Israel.

The US government has already been cracking down on any entity trying to
boycott Israel, making it difficult to carry out. The policy of the US toward
the Middle East will remain one of blind devotion to apartheid in Israel, while
divide and conquer the Arab countries, instigating as much
tribal/religious/ethnic/political division as possible to weaken national unity.
Meanwhile, US government, media and pundits will blame the victims for the
consequences of external intervention, just as they blame the Palestinians who
are victims of Israeli racist apartheid policies. Although it defies logic and
common sense to blame the victim, it is the logic of the imperialist that we
find commonly used in the 19th century by Europeans to justify their
colonial exploitation of the non-Western world.

Iran as the de facto Hegemonic Power in the Middle
East

In 2015, finally there was a US-Iran deal, despite
massive rightwing opposition in the US allied with Israel. The reason was that
powerful US-based and EU-based corporations wanted a market share in Iran, but
also because the more the US tried military solutions in regional conflicts it
instigated in the Middle East, the more powerful Iran was becoming with Russia
and China behind it. Does the US-Iran agreement (14 June 2015) that calls for
Iran to abandon nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for lifting of Western
sanctions mean a new era in relations between the US and the Middle East?
Syria, Turkey, and Egypt publicly praised the deal as a step forward because it
would mean greater regional stability and greater economic integration that
would benefit all the economies.

There are those who applaud the US for ignoring Israel
and its extreme right-wing allies in the US that have done everything in their
power to sabotage the negotiations between Iran and the West. Naturally, there
are the pro-defense industry elements that regret these developments as much as
those hiding behind a right wing ideology to justify animosity of any kind of
rapprochement between the West and Iran, an Islamic republic that has been
openly anti-West since 1979. Others see this deal as an opportunity to contain
Israel from pursuing military adventures, as well as Saudi Arabia funding
jihadists while claiming to support the struggle of the Palestinians but all
along siding with Israel on its opposition to Iran as the major power that has
a dominant voice to determine the regional balance of power.

The Iran nuclear deal may collapse at any time, if the
US deems it is in its interest to derail it. However, the only beneficiaries
from the Iranian economic integration were Russia and China, and it is unlikely
Western corporations like General Electric are going to walk away from multi-billion
dollar opportunities. In short, globalization has taken precedence over a
sanctions policy that had failed in Iran, just as it failed to bring Russia to
its knees for annexing the Crimea. Iran is the undisputed Middle East power and
will remain so for a long time, at least as long as Russia and China are
skeptical about US regional hegemonic intentions.

The EU, German Hegemony under neo-liberal Policies, and Europe Southern and
Eastern Periphery

Besides the Iran-US nuclear
negotiations, Germany enjoyed center-stage in 2015 and Chancellor Angela Merkel
was person of the year for a number of mass media journals. Although Germany
has been at the center of downward socioeconomic mobilization across Europe,
something the will continue in 2016, the neoliberals are delighted because the
richest Europeans continue to concentrate wealth under monetarist policies that
choke off growth. Germany’s leverage
stems from its massive economic power within the EU and clearly as the dominant
country it has the ability to stabilize or destabilize as it wishes. At the
same time, Germany feels the pressure from the US and China, pressure it
resents as we have seen over the disagreements on the Russia-Ukraine crisis. In
its quest for global power status, Germany wants a freer hand in the EU that it
considers its back yard, just like the US considers the Caribbean and Central
America its back yard. With France politically and economically weak, the major
obstacle to Germany is the persistence of anti-EU sentiment coming out of the
UK. It is possible that the UK will have an even larger economy than Germany at
some point before 2024, and this is something that Germans take into account
when they position themselves for hegemony today. In short, the German-UK power
struggle is important today, though hardly fierce enough for these two economic
rivals to go to war as they did in 1914.

Greece was one of the
biggest stories in 2015, but only because Germany made it so. Not just the
mainstream media throughout the world, but the social media has been covering
the drama unfolding in Greece, a drama that actually started in early 2010 when
the creditors decided to make borrowing expensive for the Greek government. In
May 2010, Greece opted for IMF-style austerity and massive cuts in public
spending and public sector jobs, combined with higher indirect taxes, measures
the EU and IMF promised would lower the public debt and stimulate higher growth
rates on a sustainable basis. Promises notwithstanding, the result has been one
of the highest unemployment rates in the world, negative GDP growth,
accompanied by much higher debt.

In 2015 was whether the
German-IMF led dogmatic neoliberals prevail or whether the reformers who believe
that the German-imposed patron-client integration model in the EU is forcing
Greece and the periphery members into neo-colonial status. Germany failed to
conquer Europe by going to wars twice in the 20th century, but it is
now trying to achieve the same result through the route of economic hegemony.
However, it has very powerful allies in multinational banks and corporations of
the entire Western World and this is why it is so powerful against those trying
to maintain a bit of their national sovereignty in order to present the
illusion of democracy to their citizens.

Beyond the very tragic
issue of millions suffering lower living standards, and beyond the very real
prospect of their continued suffering for a number of years under such
conditions, there is the fear that other countries could also meet with a
similar fate as Greece. The question for EU leaders must be to what degree is
Greece and for matter all of the periphery (southern and eastern European
countries) sovereign and to what degree do citizens have a voice in the
illusion of a democratic process that really belongs to the banks and
multinational corporations that the state represents?

Finally, Germany took the
world’s spotlight because of one the largest corruption and fraud scandals in
our time. The Volkswagen emissions scandal was only the tip of the iceberg and
the very clear manifestation of the level of corruption in the private-public
sector. It is not that VW was promoting itself as the “eco-friendly”
corporation, but that it enjoyed the backing of its government that went along
with the scandal until it broke. However, this is hardly the biggest scandal considering
that Deutsche Bank which has a long
history of corruption along with Siemens, have also been immersed in
corruption, again with government complicity. Despite all of these corporate
scandals linked to the Merkel government that at the very least failed to
prevent them and at worst had a complicit role in them, the corporate media presented
Merkel as the political hero of 2015! This is not to imply that corporate
corruption that is estimated at more than $100 billion is limited to Germany,
because it is actually an integral part of capitalism as many books and articles
have shown. (c. h. Ferguson, Predator Nation, 2013; M. J. Lynch, Corporate
Crime, Corporate Violence, 2015)

American Guns, Racism and Xenophobia

Throughout 2015, the headlines about domestic
development in the US were about gun violence, racism and xenophobia that are
an integral part of the institutional mainstream and not just Republican Party
rhetoric intended to distract from low wages and downward pressures on income.
In fact, the Washington Post revealed that the US government is planning to
raid more than 100,000 illegal aliens, thus depriving the Republicans of a
major issue in the presidential campaign in 2016. At the same time, the Obama
administration has done absolutely nothing except to give speeches on the
matter of gun violence and police shootings of black youth. If civil rights leaders from the 1950s and
1960s came back to life today, they would be enraged that racism remains an
integral part of the culture and institutional mainstream,, with only a thin
veil of political correctness to conceal its hypocrisy.

Political correctness as a veil of a racist and unjust
society, the American culture of racism has been an integral part of the police
force in American society, no matter the civil rights movements and laws on the
books. Reinforcing the racist police culture is the “war on terror” and the
culture of counter-terrorism since 9/11. The result is institutionalization of
“collective psychopathology” to the degree that torturing people, violating
their civil rights and their human rights is the now the norm that the media
accepts as necessary, and often criticizes those who dare question the abuses
of law enforcement in American cities and CIA torturers. The US Senate report
on CIA torture revealed that the US looked to Israel as a model for justifying
torture on the basis of preventing “imminent attack” in the future. That the US
would use Israel, an apartheid society, as a model makes sense if one accepts
that the US like Israel in a state of perpetual war with potential Muslim
enemies.

According
to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas
as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350. In addition,
we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that
between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of
terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380. According to the US government, a
total of 406,496 people have been
killed from 2001 to 2013, while during the same period, which includes 9/11,
3,380 people were killed on US soil and abroad as a result of what the State
Department labels “terrorism”. Ironically, the issue for the media is
terrorism and social violence, not institutionalism racism and xenophobia
prompted by the reality of downward pressures on incomes, especially on
minorities suffering high unemployment and much lower income levels than
whites. As long as people believe there is an enemy to hate – domestic and
foreign, a Nazi propaganda tactic that Hitler used in the 1930s -this covers up
all other problems and distracts people from issues of their daily material lives.

America
does not have a monopoly of racism, despite its history as a slave-owning
society that first eliminated the native population in a quest for land grab.
Nor does the US have a monopoly of xenophobia targeting Muslims and Latinos.
However, the US is a world leader and its example is emulated in other
predominantly white societies. The culture of racism and xenophobia along with
gun violence will become much more pronounced as the socioeconomic conditions
become difficult for the middle class in 2016 and beyond.

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2016

They are not taking out the champagne glasses at the Clinton campaign at
the end of 2015, but they are at least dusting them to host their millionaire and
billionaire financial contributors and their politically-correct liberal
friends trying to mobilize popular support for the presumptive nominee of the
Democrat Party in 2016. A couple of years ago, I wrote an article arguing that
there is no way Hillary could win after eight years of a black Democrat
president. I had no idea two years ago the Republicans would be divided into as
many factions, with the populist (racist-xenophobic, pro-gun segment)
prevailing over the traditional Rockefeller branch that has its roots on Wall
Street and a handful of king-makers. When Jeb Bush sounds rational within the
context of the other candidates, this is indicative of how far to the right the
party has drifted. The mistake kingmakers made in 2015 was to bring in
populists to widen the popular base because in so doing the party assumed many
poles of political power now difficult to centralize under a consensus
candidate that is acceptable both the financial elites and the disgruntled
white Christian fundamentalist xenophobe through many parts of the US.

The presidential race has revealed that neo-Fascism is now very much
acceptable as part of the Republican agenda, and just under the politically
correct carpet for some conservative Democrats as well. For the Republicans to
win the White House in 2016, Democrats would have to stay home in much larger
numbers than ever before because the Latino and Black vote is decisive and
highly unlikely it will go to the Republican nominee, even if Carson and/or
Rubio is on the ticket as VP. In 2004, President G.W. Bush captured 44% of the
Latino vote to win the White House, while in 2012, Mitt Romney received a mere
23% of same voting bloc and lost to Obama. This scenario assumes a Trump or
Cruz victory with Bush dropping out. Things may change drastically and by some
miracle a Rockefeller Republicans like Bush prevails during a divided
Republican convention where chaos could prevail as it did for Democrats in 1968
or perhaps closer to 1980 when Ted Kennedy did not embrace Jimmy Carter.

Regardless of who wins the White House, America is a status quo nation
unlikely to deviate very far from its current neoliberal path on economic
policy and interventionism in foreign affairs. The idea that the presidential
elections really means very much aside from gay marriage, abortion and
lifestyle issues is absurd as history has shown. The differences between the
political parties are stylistic and not substantive intended to project the image
of “real choice” to voters. American voters are given two candidates paid for
the financial elites and whose interests they will serve even if they have not
received money from millionaires and billionaires. In the end, as history has
shown, it makes little difference which one wins to the lives of the middle
class and workers.

Wednesday, 23 December 2015

The thesis of this brief article is that reformism does not work and only
leads to even greater sociopolitical conformity. This is as much the case today
in Greece that has tried it, as in Spain endeavoring to try it under its new
progressive PODEMOS party, as it has been throughout history. One reason that
EU and US investors are bullish on Spanish securities, despite a temporary
setback the day after the elections is because they know that the anti-austerity
PODEMOS party will conform exactly as SYRIZA in Greece and neoliberal policies
will prevail no matter who is in government.

Spain’s PODEMOS and Greece’s
SYRIZA: Doomed Reformism

The general elections of Spain
on 20 December 2015 sent mild shock waves across Spain’s markets, especially
the banks that have benefited from government bailouts at the enormous expense
of the general taxpayer. However, the rest of the European markets actually
rose on the news, precisely because politicians and investors know it is highly
unlikely that the anti-austerity party PODEMOS coming in with roughly 22% of
the vote, third behind the Socialists and the ruling Conservative party, will
not amount to any systemic change. The markets, politicians, and the world learned
this lesson after the Greek anti-austerity party SYRIZA became even more
pro-austerity than its conservative Socialist predecessor despite winning on an
anti-austerity platform in January 2015. In short, the progressive reformist
agenda of Greece’s SYRIZA which was very similar to PODEMOS quickly transformed
into a neo-liberal pro-IMF monetarist one once in government.

Does PODEMOS have a different
agenda than SYRIZA under Alexis Tsipras, and thus a different fate awaits it
because its secretary-general Pablo Iglesias will stick to campaign promises of
reform? Although the mainstream media focuses on the cult of personality in our
age of celebrity politicians and businessmen, the reality is that even after
Tsipras embraced austerity and neoliberal policies, Iglesias continued to
support him. This is indicative that PODEMOS is more or less a party of petty
bourgeois reformism that will quickly fold within the neoliberal mainstream,
although it arose from the need to fill a political gap that the Socialists
left when they embraced austerity and neo-liberalism.

The Socialist parties of
Spain, Greece, Portugal and France that prevailed in the Reagan-Thatcher decade
of the 1980s converted to neoliberal parties and were hardly different than
their conservative counterparts in policy, despite the leftist rhetoric. Both
Iglesias and Tsipras had roots in leftist (Euro-Communist – anti-Stalinist) politics
in their youth, but both moved toward a more reformist social-democratic
orientation that built careers against neoliberal policies and austerity. Just
as in the 1980s when neoliberal policies prevailed against European Socialist
parties advocating social-democracy, and just as the populist nationalist
parties of Venezuela, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia have caved under
the pressures ofglobalization promoting
neoliberalism, the fate awaiting Spain’s PODEMOS will be no different. The
sooner their voters absolve themselves of such illusions and seek a genuine
alternative to neoliberalism and austerity the better chance they will have to
escape the fate of their counterparts in other countries that tried the road of
bourgeois reformism.

The pro-neoliberal media in
Spain and Greece and across the world have been labeling PODEMOS and SYRIZA as
“far left”, “radical left”, “ultra-left wing” and anti-capitalist, which
aspires to create a regime similar to that of the later Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela. Although it is true that the rhetoric of both PODEMOS and SYRIZA,
parties that have declared solidarity, share some ideological elements of
Socialism, they are also committed to “enlightened capitalism”, Keynesian
economics, and a return to the old EU integration model based on
interdependence rather than German political and economic hegemony. If we set
aside the ideological rhetoric intended to win the disgruntled voters, which is
not so different than EU Socialist parties fully committed to austerity and neoliberalism,
and if we focus on the reformist contradiction of promising to change the
neoliberal model into a rational enlightened capitalist one that would have a
broad middle class as its social base, the question is whether finance capital
would voluntarily yield its privileges for the sake of social harmony under a
democratic system.

PODEMOS arose from the ashes
of the politically bankrupt and corrupt Socialist Party that had embraced
neoliberal policies and austerity as have the Socialist parties of France,
Greece and Portugal. Its appeal is the disgruntled middle class of Spain that
sees its future in doubt and fears that the EU’s fourth largest economy is not
so different than Greece. After all, Greece and Spain have the highest unemployment in the
EU above 20 percent, they both have contracting economies, they both have
rising debt-to-GDP levels despite five years of austerity, and they both have
dim prospects for recovery that would improve living standards for the working
class and middle class.

Above all, a segment of the
population in Spain that backs PODEMOS knows that the EU of today is not the EU
of pre-2008 that rested on an integration model of interdependence, with EU
funds subsidizing the weaker economies to lift them closer to the levels of the
northwest core in Europe. The PODEMOS voters know as do those in SYRIZA that
the hard euro currency only helps to strengthen large capital in the EU and
within it Germany that exerts financial control and through it determines
fiscal policy, trade policy, labor policy and everything impacting society from
health to education.In short, PODEMOS
backers know very well as do their Greek counterparts that there is no such
thing as national sovereignty, no such thing as popular mandate, no democracy
because the new model of integration based on a patron (core sector)-client
(periphery and semi-periphery) is now in effect and it is no different than the
US model of regional integration that has kept US southern neighbors in a state
of dependency since the Spanish-American War.

PEDEMOS appeals to young
intellectuals for the most part who are still idealistic enough to believe in
reformism, just as their Greek counterparts who are now thoroughly
disillusioned that SYRIZA has turned out to be much worse than the Conservative
and Socialist party in terms of caving to IMF-German austerity and neoliberal
policy demands. The structure of the
young-reformist appealing party will end up as SYRIZA in Greece because it has
no commitment to grassroots organizing and to systemic change that will end the
patron-client integration model and assert national sovereignty based on a
social justice framework. If PODEMOS comes to power, its fate will be exactly as that of SYRIZA
that served to co-opt the disgruntled anti-austerity, anti-neoliberal masses,
de-radicalized them and served them on a silver platter to the neoliberal
political and financial establishment of EU and international capitalism.

Like SYRIZA in Greece that has
actually taken austerity and neoliberal policies even farther to the right than
the previous right-wing government, PODEMOS will follow the same path, assuming
it comes to power. As long as it is in the opposition, it will insist that it
is against austerity and neoliberal policies, that it represents the middle
class and workers, that it wants a new kind of integration model because it
supports Spain’s place within the EU; in other words, arguments that the Greek
SYRIZA voters heard many times until they faced the reality of a party that
betrayed every single promise made and caved to domestic financial and global
financial and political interests.

Not just the “austerity”
countries of southern Europe but the entire continent is struggling for new
leadership that breaks away from representing the finance capital. Some voters
have drifted to the far right. However, as the election results demonstrated in
France, the Marine Le Pen’s National Front came in third because the political
pendulum has shifted so far to the right that the traditional conservatives
have embraced a segment of the extreme right wing agenda. On the left, voters
cannot go to the bankrupt Communist parties because the memory of a failed
Soviet bloc remains too close and the majority of the people want to maintain
the crumbs they have under the existing political economy rather than risk a
new social order.

Despite its NAZI past
revealing itself in financial, economic and political hegemony under a
conservative-led coalition government, Germany has managed to dilute if not
efface national sovereignty in the EU because capitalists of all countries see
greater benefits accruing to them under the patron-client model than under
national capitalism that Russia is pursuing. In short, the fear of isolation
from the regional and global economy forces the established elites to embrace
the devil they know. PODEMOS and SYRIZA come along to co-opt a segment of the
population that wants reforms that include national capitalism and national
sovereignty as part of the mix but not outside the framework of international
capitalism. This blatant contradiction simply does not work because it is
irreconcilable. The end result is that reformist parties like SYRIZA and
PODEMOS opposed to neoliberal and austerity (monetarist) policies only wind up
de-radicalizing the masses and marginalizing them by reinforcing the idea that
the political, business and social representative of neoliberalism advocates,
namely there is no choice other than what exists now because the quest for
social justice is futile as it will lead to social, economic and political
insecurity.

The result of SYRIZA’s
betrayal of voters’ trust was that one-third of its elected parliamentary
members left the party, arguing that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras betrayed the
goals of national sovereignty and national capitalism in exchange for political
power and benefits that accrue to him and his political supporters under crony
capitalism that has always worked to the detriment of the vast majority in
Greece since the nation-state was founded in 1832. Assuming it comes to power,
PODEMOS will face the same dilemma as SYRIZA and in the end it will follow a similar
path because the neoliberal political, business and social establishment have
the ability to crush any reformist opposition. Popular grassroots movement
intent on systemic reform is the only fear of the neoliberal establishment, and
this is not what PODEMOS and SYRIZA represent.

The fact that we have a
capitalist international order in the last five centuries is indicative that
reformism has never worked to bring about systemic change. Attempts at “reform
from within the system” are actually a conservative concept first introduced by
the conservative British MP Edmund Burke immediately after the French
Revolution. In short, those backing the existing social order argue that if the
social contract is not satisfactory to a segment of the population we can have
a few changes but without altering the system in which the privileged elites
retain their roles. Both SYRIZA and PODEMOS have accepted the conservative
definition of reformism, deluding the voters that there is hope for change when
in fact structural change does not come via reforms because it never has. Having
the best of all possible worlds, capitalism that entails a hierarchical society
where social justice is lacking, but at the same time achieving social
democracy is a glaring contradiction.

In Greece there are just 12
families that own 80% of the wealth and enjoy dominant influence in the media
and political arena, there is also the role of international capitalists whose
interest public policy takes into account because of IMF-EU-imposed austerity
policies since 2010. In the last five years, the wealthiest people in Greece
have actually become wealthier because of austerity and neoliberal policies
that transferred wealth from the public sector and lower income groups to the
upper class and foreign financial interests. Is the situation so different in
Spain than it is in Greece? Just ten billionaires own the vast majority of the
wealth, headed by Amancio Ortega worth more than $80 billion, making him richer
than Bill Gates.

The massive capital concentration in Spain as well as
Greece is largely the result of fiscal policies that drain income from the
bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and transfer it to the top and from the
southern EU countries to Germany and the northwest. This is a prescription for:
a) unsustainable GDP growth; b) chronic high unemployment; c) low living
standards and downward socioeconomic mobility; d) high debt-to-GDP levels that
rises as austerity and neoliberal policies continue; and e) the inevitability
of political apathy, which is exactly what the political and financial elites
want, and polarization in society. This means increasingly authoritarian
policies disguised under neoliberalism as democratic because people have the
right to vote. SYRIZA has proved that reformism is an illusion that causes more
damage to the struggle for social justice than the traditional European
conservatives and Socialists embracing austerity and neoliberal policies. If it
ever comes to power, PODEMOS will prove the same thing.

Greece continues to have a rising debt-to-GDP ratio
because its GDP has been shrinking owing to austerity policies that have
slashed consumption by about 30%, or the equivalent of the drop in GDP. The
patron-client model means that Greece will be reduced to a periphery dependent
semi-colony with living standards roughly equal to its Balkan neighbors,
exactly as Germany demanded. Because social security benefits have dropped
dramatically and the new retirement age has been raised to 67, this means labor
values have dropped as well along with all asset values. The reason that
foreign investors are optimistic about Spain is precisely because they see
asset values continuing to drop as they are in Greece, led by labor value
declines.

The failure of reformism in Greece and Spain may not
necessarily lead to a rise of a genuine grassroots anti-capitalist movement under
a leftist political party. On the contrary, neo-Fascism lurking about throughout
the Western World has been laying the groundwork as socioeconomic conditions
deteriorate and more people lose confidence in the consensus around which the
parliamentary system has been built. As the mainstream conservative parties
incorporate aspects of neo-Fascism, using counter-terrorism as the pretext, people
would not need to gravitate to the openly neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi parties,
just as the case of France demonstrated in the recent elections. The crisis of
parliamentary democracy is already apparent in a number of EU countries, merely
by the fact that people lack trust in any of the existing political parties and
in the constitutional system as representative of the broader masses. As
capitalism continues to polarize social groups, and as reformism proves that it
is not more than another broken promise to voters, a segment of the population
will look to ultra-right wing populist leadership for solutions, and therein
rests the danger of neo-Fascism in the 21st century.

"A
gripping, passion-filled, and suspenseful tale of love, betrayal,
political and religious intrigue, this novel entices the reader’s
senses and intellect beyond conventions. Slaves to Gods and Demons
takes the reader through a roller coaster enthralling journey of
personal trials and triumphs of a family emerging vanquished and
destitute after World War II.

Narrated by a young boy, Morfeos, modeled after the Greco-Roman pagan
deity of sleep and dreams, the book reveals the soul of a people trying
to ascertain and assert their identity while rebuilding their lives and
recapturing the glory of a lost civilization.

Seeking liberation from restraints of time, social conventions, and
binding traditions, the deity of dreams provides the conformist and the
free-spirited characters in the novel with venues for redemption that
are mere paths toward illusions. Exploring the complexities of human
relationships shaped by priest and politician alike, the novel rests on
the central theme that life is invariably a series of illusions, some
of which are euphoric, most horrifying, all an integral part of daily
existence.

Striving for purpose amid life’s absurdities after the destruction of
western civilization in two global wars, the characters in Slaves to
Gods and Demons struggle between holding on to the glory and grandeur of
a pagan legacy and the Christian present shaped by contemporary
secular events in Western Civilization."